UK court overturns ruling on legal staff conducting litigation

By Sam Tobin

LONDON, March 31 (Reuters) - British paralegals or trainees can carry out litigation tasks if they are properly supervised, London's Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday, overturning a surprise ruling which had thrown many law firms into chaos.

The judgment in favour of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) reversed a lower-court decision that said "unauthorised" persons such as paralegals or trainees and most legal executives were not allowed to conduct litigation, such as drafting or serving documents, under the Legal Services Act 2007.

The ruling from the High Court last year called into doubt the business model of some firms, which rely on staff conducting tasks under the supervision of a qualified lawyer, and caused problems for law centres, which provide free advice to those who may not be able to afford lawyers.

But the Court of Appeal said unauthorised people can conduct litigation tasks, for example preparing documents, so long as a qualified lawyer "puts in place appropriate arrangements for the supervision of and delegation to the unauthorised person".

Judge Colin Birss said there had been "a widespread, general and well-regulated practice of delegation by solicitors to unqualified individuals" before 2007, which was not intended to have been changed by the Legal Services Act.

The Court of Appeal said, though, that it is "simply not possible to provide a comprehensive list of all those tasks that fall within and outside the conduct of litigation".

CILEX welcomed the decision, which its chief executive Jennifer Coupland said was a victory for the group's members and also "for access to justice (and) the interests of consumers".

"There will be many individuals and businesses, including those operating in the not-for-profit sector, who will be relieved by this outcome," CILEX's lawyer Iain Miller, from the firm Kingsley Napley, said in a statement.

The Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, said Tuesday's ruling "confirms the continuing importance of supervision".

The body had intervened in CILEX's appeal to argue the High Court was correct, citing the public interest in ensuring legal work complies with legal and professional standards.

Joshua Swift, a partner at Withers who was not involved in the case, said the Court of Appeal's decision was a pragmatic one which "aligns the law with how litigation is actually carried out in practice".

The case is CILEX and others v Mazur and others, Court of Appeal of England and Wales, CA-2025-002754

For the appellant CILEX: Nicholas Bacon KC, Helen Evans KC, Teen Jui Chow and Faye Metcalfe, instructed by Kingsley Napley

For the respondents Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart: litigants in person

For the respondent the SRA: Tom Lowenthal, instructed by Capital Law

For the respondent the Law Society: Richard Coleman KC, and Marianne Butler, instructed by Russell-Cooke

For the Intervener, the Legal Services Board: Tim Johnston, instructed by Hogan Lovells

For the Intervener, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers: Benjamin Williams KC, Matthew Waszak, and Theo Barclay, instructed by Irwin Mitchell

For the Law Centres Network: PJ Kirby KC and James Hall, instructed by Allen Overy Shearman Sterling